AOH :: LFERROR.TXT|
Claim that Lorentz Fitzgerald, being purely theoretical is IN ERROR.get this!
| File Name : LFERROR.ASC | Online Date : 06/10/95 |
| Contributed by : InterNet | Dir Category : ENERGY |
| From : KeelyNet BBS | DataLine : (214) 324-3501 |
| A FREE Alternative Sciences BBS sponsored by Vanguard Sciences |
| KeelyNet * PO BOX 870716 * Mesquite, Texas * USA * 75187 |
| Voice/FAX : (214) 324-8741 InterNet - email@example.com |
| WWW Mirror - http://www.eskimo.com/~billb |
The following document is a compilation of 3 files from the InterNet, all of
which deal with a proposed new discovery that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald
contraction is in error.
The first message from "S. Hawkings" is probably bogus, so take it with a
block of salt. The second message gets back to some degree of rational
questioning of the claim that mass becomes infinite as it approaches the speed
of light. Despite the third message, I think Papadakis is onto something
220 15337 <firstname.lastname@example.org> article
From: Guest Account <guest>
Subject: Special relativity is wrong!!!
Date: 2 Jun 1995 13:57:57 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; IRIX 5.2 IP12)
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
This message is a copy of a letter we received at our laboratories last
week... It seems to us much too important to be kept secret. So we decided to
submit it to your critical analysis...
WHY FITZGERALD LORENTZ CONTRACTION IS AN ERROR, AND MODIFICATIONS OF PHYSICAL
THEORY THAT THIS FACT IMPLIES. THIRD PAPER
by J. Papadakis
of the Academy of Athens
In a previous paper (Papadakis 1995a) it has been shown, that Fitzgerald
Lorentz contraction is an error; and in another paper (Papadakis 1995b) we
have discussed the modifications of physical theory, that this finding
implies. This is a complement of these papers; it brings more proofs of the
fact, that Fitzgerald Lorentz contraction is an error, and it extends, a
little, the matters, in which a modification of physical theory is needed.
2. WHY FITZGERALD-LORENTZ CONTRACTION IS AN ERROR
2.1. At the time of the Michelson experiment, it was believed, that Earth's
rotation was affecting the distance between two points on Earth's surface.
Michelson experiment has shown, that such influence does not exist. But the
idea was so deeply rooted, that in spite of the results of Michelson
experiment, the error has not been abandoned during one century.
To explain the discrepancy between the results of Michelson experiments and
the prevailing opinion that Earth's rotation affects the distances on Earth's
surface, Fitzgerald and Lorentz separately, launched their theory of
contraction. The theory is gratuitous, there are NO experiments or
observations sustaining it.
A change of the length of a body, its reduction to practically 0, is not
conceivable, it entails a modification of the whole structure of the body,
which is the result of a long and complex process, which differs enormously
from body to body; to pretend that in a very short time, the body becomes a
very slim leaf, is something, that cannot be accepted, unless experimentally
The formula L' = L (1-v2/c2) may be even interpreted, that at c velocity the
body disappears. Moreover the relativists pretend, that the mass of the body
becomes infinite; and the two assertions, contradict one another.
The structure of a body is the result of a very long process, that cannot be
completed, during the acceleration of a body. Bodies contraction is perhaps
the most illogical process, that has been proposed in the history of science.
And it has been almost universally accepted, during almost a century. The
reason may be that, it has been proposed, or accepted by outstanding
scientists. Practice shows, that only very small bodies can be accelerated,
and big bodies never move with high velocities.
2.2. Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction has been easily admitted, because at that
time it was not known, that the equivalent of a unit of matter is c2 units of
energy. Therefore, the scientists have been surprised, when it has been
discovered, that light velocity is 300.000 km; they declared light velocity, a
universal constant, light the 'rebel' of nature, and c the higher limit of
But now we know, that the velocity of light is c, because the energy of a
photon is nu c^2, nu is the frequency; its base is nu c, and its velocity is
necessarily nu c^2/nu c=c.
The universal constant should be not c, but c2; and light is not the rebel of
nature. Velocities higher than c, are not observed because, even when all the
mass of a body is energy, as in the case of photons, the velocity cannot
surpass c, because whatever increase of energy, would increase in the same
rate, both the energy and the mass, and consequently the velocity could not
It may be a combination of attraction by another body and internal energy,
could increase the velocity, beyond c; but gravitation is only powerful in the
lower atmosphere of big stars; and this athosphere does not permit high
velocities. So that it is probable that conditions never permit velocities
higher than c.
3. MODIFICATIONS OF PHYSICAL THEORY, THAT THE FINDINGS, THAT LORENTZ
CONTRACTION IS AN ERROR, IMPLIES
For more details, see 1995b paper
3. 1. MECHANICS
3.1. We know now, that the energy of the force that causes the motion, passes
from the motor to the object, which begins to move, and its mass increases.
But it seems, that this storage of energy in the mass of a body, which
consists not only of energy, but also of matter, is very difficult, at high
velocities; and a great part of the energy is lost as heat, more especially
when the body is big; there are also differences between bodies of equal size.
With big bodies the velocity ceases to increase very rapidly, and velocity c
is never approached. The maximum velocities of big objects, f.i. stars, are
very low, compared to that of minute objects. We have already mentioned these
Much investigation is needed; and it may be very fruitful from a technological
point of view; it is also curious, that lasers have not been tested.
3.2. Relativists pretend, that velocities higher than c, are impossible. But
theoretically that is not certain. It is chiefly due to the fact that an
increase of the energy included in the mass of a body, at c velocity, would
increase equally the energy, and the mass, and the result would be zero.
3.2.1. Light Velocity
Light velocity in vacuo is c, because the energy of a photon is nu c^2, its
mass vc, and consequently its velocity in vacuo is nu c^2/nu c=c. But when the
velocity of light has been measured, it was not known, that the equivalent of
one unit of matter was c^2 units of energy; and much time passed before that;
therefore the discovery, that the velocity of light is 300.000 k.m. surpised
the scientists; they considered light as the rebel of nature, c as a universal
The universal constant is c^2, the equivalent of 1 unit of matter in units of
energy, and c is only a consequence of this fact.
Light is not the 'rebel' of nature; and such rebels do not exist. Light
velocity needs some time, minimal naturally, to increase from that of the
light source, or mirror, to c.
Light duality does not honour science. And it is time to terminate with it.
Maxwell (1831-1879) is next to Newton, one of the scientists, who more
contributed to physics. But he died too early, before the abandonment of his
ether theory, after Michelson experiment. And it had not time to adapt his
equations to this fact. That is why some of his equations need a revision.
Fields have not a real existence. They are creations of human mind, and only
serve to show, how gravitation, attraction or repulsion, increase or decrease,
when the distance between two bodies increases, or several attractions or
Maxwell has not survived to modify some of his equations, and it is time, that
others do that. And the same is needed with gravitation. Naturally no
particles are sent from a body to another. We should not forget that particles
have a mass, energy, e.t.c. And we cannot invent gratuitly, new kinds of
particles. That applies also in the case of gravitation.
3. 4. RELATIVITY THEORY
It is evident that the mass of a body at velocity c cannot be infinite. Even
the sum of the masses of all bodies could not be infinite. Infinite masses,
etc. do not exist in positive sciences.
3.5. SPACE AND TIME
Time is only conceptual; it has not material existence; and it cannot have a
form. To discuss if time, is curved or not, is the same as to discuss, if
intelligence is red or blue.
3.6. MONODETERMINISM AND POLYDETERMINISM
The great majority of events are polydeterministic. Mendel has shown, that the
same cause may have different effects, each one with its probability.
Polydeterminism is much more frequent than monodeterminism.
GALLONI E., RUIVAL H. (1976). Teoria Especial de la Relatividad.
PAPADAKIS J. (1934). From an Ecological and Psychological Point of View there
is an abyss between Man and All Other Species. The three Steps in
the Evolution of Living Beings. Cultural versus Genetic Evolution.
Inaugural lecture in the University of Thessaloniki.
- (1979a) Some considerations on Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
- (1979b) Some Considerations on Relativity Theory. Buenos Aires.
- (1979c) Further Considerations on Relativity Theory. Buenos Aires.
- (1979d) An Hypothesis on Light Velocity and Relativity of Space and Time.
- (1980) Is Time Relative? Slightly Amended Classical Mechanics Fit All known
Facts. Buenos Aires.
- (1981) A Physical Theory, that Unifies Classical and Quantum Mechanics.
- (1985) Is Time Relative? Classical Mechanics Fit All known Facts.
Quasars etc. may Decide the Question. Research Suggestions. Athens.
- (1987) Light Velocity and Relative Matters. Satellites may Decide the
- (1988a) Research Suggestions on Fundamental Problems of Physics. Athens.
- (1988b) Gravitation, Time Dilation, etc. The Need of Certain Fundamental
Research in Physics. Athens.
- (1988c) Newton's Physics. Amended to Incorporate All Later Advances.
- (1989a) Experimental Apparatus for Fundamental Research on Radiation.
- (1989b) Errors in Our Days Physics and the Need of Research.
- (1990) Fundamental Science. Athens.
- (1992) Our conception of the Universe and Relativity theory, etc.
- (1992) Light velocity, relativity theory, and uncertainty principle.
Reflexion is a collision, and that changes the problem. Athens.
- (1992) Relativity theory, uncertanty principle, etc. Further discussion of
the consequenses of the fact that reflexion is a collision. Athens.
- (1994) Relativity theory, a critical note. Athens.
- (199Sa) Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction, the famous relativistic beta, basis
of relativity theory is an error, that passed unnoticed during a
- (1995b) Some modifications of physical theory, after the findings, that
Lorentz contraction and the relativistic beta are an error.
J. Papadakis Venizelou 28, Athens, Greece.
220 15352 <email@example.com> article
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Jonathan Scott)
Subject: Re: Special relativity is wrong!!!
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 1995 16:05:15 GMT
Organization: IBM UK Labs
Reply-To: email@example.com (Jonathan Scott)
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
on 2 Jun 1995 13:57:57 GMT,
Guest Account <Guest> writes:
>WHY FITZGERALD LORENTZ CONTRACTION IS AN
>ERROR, AND MODIFICATIONS OF PHYSICAL THEORY
>THAT THIS FACT IMPLIES. THIRD PAPER
>by J. Papadakis
>of the Academy of Athens
I just tried to read this; it is such total nonsense that I wouldn't know how
to start replying to it. The author is clearly under the impression that the
Lorentz contraction is a sort of physical "squeezing" and not just an effect
of looking at the same events from a different viewpoint. He also appears to
be attempting to describe this contraction in isolation, without taking into
account that it is really a side-effect of a change in the definition of what
is simultaneous in different frames of reference.
Basically, the whole article is just an expression of a stubborn total
unwillingness or inability to believe in non-Newtonian physics. It has little
to do with anything scientific.
email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org
The entire AOH site is optimized to look best in Firefox® 3 on a widescreen monitor (1440x900 or better).
Site design & layout copyright © 1986- AOH
We do not send spam. If you have received spam bearing an artofhacking.com email address, please forward it with full headers to email@example.com.